day time lights

Not at all. I would love for you to post some points that make sense, but, you think you are right, and anyone who disagrees are "dumb". Where are the debating skills there?

The only problem with your reasoning in this case Larry, is that it all revolves around your preferences. It's a case built upon the premise that if something bothers me, then others should not do it. That's what is commonly called an attitude of "it's all about me". One might counter your position with the question - why does this bother you so much?

The intellectual dishonesty I made reference to Larry was very much like that exhibited in this response. You completely snipped all of the inserted responses where I demonstrated your behavior to have been exactly that which you were beating others up about, and elected to leave in only a comment that you could freely make any claim you wished. Sorry Larry - you lose another round.

You seem to need a reminder Larry - I have no dog in this fight. I don't care one way or another about DRL's. If my car or the cars that others drive have them, fine. If they don't fine. My comments have been strictly related to the bogus claims the zealots like yourself and Sharon have brought into this group. If you don't like that others do not simply accept everything you post - then post something of substance. The mere act of you posting a thought does not make it a legitimate claim. The one with the difficulty in accepting the position of others is you Larry - you seem to have a great deal of difficulty in others not simply bowing to your position.

An excellent point Larry - one worthy of your time. Please consider the one doing the most yelling - that would be you.

That won't happen. It has not happened throughout this "discussion", and it surely won't in the future. Zealots don't make points - they make claims. Then... they whine, accuse and attack when others question the basis for their position. As you well note 80 Knight, for all of Larry's whining about lack of real debate, he has not debated one single point. His assertions have been challenged, and his response to those challenges has been to attack the challenger. When one does not have a defense, one resorts to attacking the challenger - now that's quite a debating skill, isn't it?

Everything you say is based solely on how you feel about it or on what people have stated to you individually. There is a bigger world out here and there are people that do complain about DRL's. Just because you don't see it personally does not mean it does not exist and that you can tell those who are offended to just shut up, hmmm.

haveDRL's? Why is it that your choice is the proper one? Let's hypothetically do

Easy answer, people have driven without lights on for years and you could see all cars, pedestrians, etc.. equally. It already works that way.

If everyone had lights on, then all you would see is a bunch of cars with lights and would not see the unlit objects. So, no that would not be a good idea. And, of course, if they all had their lights on then no car would be seen more than the other, so you might as well just turn them all off and have the same affect.

I could not find that information, hadn't heard of that before and if I had it would have been big news. So, if you know where to find it then please enlighten us.

I did stumble upon this:

THE CASE AGAINST DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS

Larry

Well, then why are you guys the ones who are not showing courtesy in any way?

I already did lay out the information, you simply ignored it. What you are discussing here is how you like to drone on and on about nothing. You want to beat anyone down that disagrees with you, that is very clear.

Cheers,

Larry

No sir, it is all about you. You want so much to do whatever you want to, you could care less what impact it has on anyone. The only moral you follow is to "get yours" and everyone else can fall of a cliff.

What you haven't realized is that this discussion is not about what people think is cool or what they prefer. It is about safety and common courtesy in the impact that your actions have on others. Before DRLs, no one had this kind of issue, but since then we have issues. The answer is to be kind to other drivers and stop causing issues because you so want to think you are safe. Well sir, you are just creating issues for others, whether you want to believe it or not.

The mere fact that you continue to go round robin on this points to the fact that you know that you are in the wrong for being so selfish in making sure that your lights shine in the eyes of others that you have to beat down everyone that might complain. You are the one who should be ashamed, a person with lights on is adding to the visual pollution to another driver, but a person without lights on is not having a similar impact. You are the one trying to inflict your desires on others, not me.

Get real and stop discussing this, as I will have to keep reminding you as to how self centered you truly are.

Stop debating or punching in the air, it does not suit you. You are trying to put words in my mouth, I clearly stated that the intellectual comment was in reference to people who agree and who disagree with me, enough said on that.

You want to act like I am just another clone of you, so bad it hurts. Well sir, I am not like you. Thanks for your time, please drive through, nothing more to see here.

The Mike show has veered off the tracks folks, I don't know if he can remember what we were talking about, LOL :)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, hmmm did some one say something.

Here's the difficult part about you Larry. I have told you repeatedly that I don't care one way or the other about DRL's. It's not about me at all. I'm fine letting people do what they feel is best. It is people like you who get so upset over others doing what they don't like. As you can easily see by re-reading this thread Larry - the only getting upset because the world is not marching to his drum is you. 80 Knight and I do not agree with your position, have called your contrived reasoning when you've posted it, and you're just fit to be tied. Yeah Larry - it's all about you.

You need to make that point to the advocates of DRL's Larry. You are so blinded by your own zealous mission that you don't even realize that I am not an advocate of DRL's.

No - I simply told you how lame your made up little claims were. Admit it Larry - you're just upset because we didn't fawn all over your ideas.

Admit it Larry - by continuing your little crusade, it is you who is contributing to the polution of the internet and the wasting of precious electrons with your every post.

First you have to successfully do so Larry, before you can use the word "continue". So far, you've only succeeded in proving how poorly you debate.

You have to be one of the most incompetent posters I have ever seen. Sure, there are people out there who don't want the DRL's. What about the people who *do* want them? Do they not count? Also, I find it amusing how you "pick-and-choose" as to what comments you wish to respond too. You have lost, Larry. Get over it.

Grab a clue. We have questioned many of your arguments, yet you can't answer back. You snip important text out of a post, and respond to only what you wish to. You have made an ass of yourself, Larry, and after you do that, don't expect to be taken too seriously until you prove you are worth it.

I also wonder where he came from. It seems odd to me that someone would join this automotive group, only to complain about DRL's. Especially as I see he has made no other posts. But, I guess everyone needs a hobby.

I'm not the one trying to outlaw DRL's, only because I don't like them.

People used to drive without seat-belts, air-bags, and many other things as well. Does that mean they are too useless, because it used to work that way?

As I have continually stated, here in Canada, all cars do have there DRL's on, and yet I can see everything quite fine.

You seem to be treating DRL's as if they are flood-lights attached to the front bumper. We are talking about headlamps used at a reduced brightness. There is a big difference.

I had never heard of it either, until I read the post. Perhaps if you ask him where he read it, he would post it for you.

"The committee found this evidence unconvincing." Great start there. Wow, what a read. Even the group who made that report can't come to a conclusion on if they are worthy or not. At the end, they recommend the DRL's remain voluntary. How does this help you, Larry? That means, people can still use them if they want too. You want them gone completely, and even with all of that "evidence", the group decided not to do so. Also, this was only about motorcycles, nothing about cars, which take up much more road time.

Mike,

I do realize fully that you could care less about all of this. I remember that from the first time you posted on the subject. That makes this most puzzling as to why you have such a bleeding hear for all of this. It isn't my fault that you joined back in or that Knight had to put his foot in his mouth. It is yours and Knights attacks that have fueled the negativity on this thread. You can keep badmouthing me, but I don't care :).

Now onto what will be the final responses, unless you have something relevant to say:

A reminder: This thread is a discussion of the pro, cons or indifference towards daytime running lights.

Your comment is a personal attack and will not be addressed. If you would like to carry out an intellectual discussion on the actual topic, feel free. Any future personal attacks will be thoroughly ignored.

Thanks for your time and God bless